4 ms·

> In the absence of a formal definition, any statement about "has sentience" is not only unfalsifiable, it's absurd. I have to disagree with you there. While i

by qayxc 4y ago

> In the absence of a formal definition, any statement about "has sentience" is not only unfalsifiable, it's absurd. I have to disagree with you there. While it's indeed a question of faith (i.e. unscientific) to give a definite positive answer - or rather that a positive answer depends on a an arbitrarily chosen set of criteria - the opposite is simply not true. More formally put: making a positive claim would require a sufficient condition that has to be met. I agree that such condition/criterion doesn't exists (yet). Required conditions, however, do exist. Sentience in any scientific sense requires the ability to actively perceive- and interact with the environment, as well as a physical mechanism for processing and storing information. So we can definitely rule out rocks being sentient, for example. On the other hand, depending on the set of criteria you chose, you may or may not classify a sophisticated chatbot as sentient. It'd be sufficient to present such set of testable criteria and apply them to the system under test. Whether you or I accept these criteria as being sufficient, is another question entirely and indeed not a scientific one.

rendall 4y ago
> Sentience in any scientific sense... I'm still not seeing a definition there though. Let's arbitrarily try: "sentience is here defined as having sensations, self awareness and sense of place in the universe". Good? Feel free to change it. I like your necessary versus sufficient phrasing, though. Let's take a look. Can we agree to remove "in any scientific sense" from there? It lends it an air of authority I'm not sure is justified. Feel free to push back, though. So: a required condition for sentience is "the ability to actively perceive- and interact with the environment, as well as a physical mechanism for processing and storing information" Hmm. "Actively perceive" "And interact with the environment" and "stores information". Couldn't this be a just-so story to include that which we feel to be most like us and exclude that which is least like us? Could we then say "the degree to which something is sentient is the degree to which it matches a human"? I think I can imagine a patient who contacts a horrific virus that cuts off all external and bodily sensations. She is still fully cognizant but now feels herself to be bodiless, floating in nothingness. From the outside, she seems to be asleep or paralyzed. She is kept alive by caretakers and her own autonomous processes but she can perceive none of it. Is she sentient? Id say yes, but she nevertheless lacks some of the required conditions.
- int_19h 4y ago
  I believe that you're spot-on here. We don't really know what sentience is and cannot define it, so we resort to one of the two approaches: inclusionary, where anything that behaves as we'd expect a sentient entity to behave is considered sentient; and exclusionary, which is basically coming up with excuses as to why things that behave as sentient really aren't, because their behavior is implemented in ways that are "fundamentally" different from ours.
- qayxc 4y ago
  > Can we agree to remove "in any scientific sense" from there? No we can't, that's the entire point. As soon as you remove that, you remove any testable, repeatable observation, which is the whole point. > I think I can imagine a patient who contacts a horrific virus that cuts off all external and bodily sensations. Think harder. There's a reason some patients are declared "brain dead". There are observable processes associated with human sentience, e.g. brain waves and body functions. If one fails (e.g. the heart stops and the vital signs collapse), they can sometimes be restored externally. If both fail and cannot be restored, the patient is declared dead and thus no longer sentient in the scientific (i.e. observable and testable) sense. Everything else is religion. It's really that simple. edit: as far machines go, different criteria have to be selected, because obviously language models don't have a pulse or emit delta waves. edit2: also forgot to mention that the perception and interaction proposal applies to the system (or organism) in principle - accidents or illnesses don't count; a system that's by design incapable of interacting with and perceiving its environment cannot be said to be sentient (again, because I cannot stress this enough: in an observable/testable way).
- qayxc 4y ago
  I gave this some more thought, because I find this topic fascinating and important in light of recent developments in the field. Sentience requires the ability to perform computations and to store information. This is the most basic necessary precondition and rules out most inanimate objects from being sentient right away. The scenario of a patient incapable of any kind of perception (keep in mind that this includes touch, taste, smell, and pain) and incapable of conscious interaction (e.g. locked-in syndrome) can still be observably sentient (testable by monitoring brain patterns and various pain- and reflex tests). Pain response and cranial nerve reflexes in your example, would be considered signs of brain activity and sentience. They also qualify as perceiving and interacting with the environment, though passively. Their absence in many jurisdictions is equivalent to the death of the patient (specifically they are declared brain dead). This understanding of being alive or dead, however, is separate from our understanding of sentience. In the context of human being specifically, being alive is a requirement for being sentient. Generally, though, these are two different matters entirely. So back to your example: > I think I can imagine a patient who contacts a horrific virus that cuts off all external and bodily sensations. Locked-in syndrome comes to mind. > She is still fully cognizant but now feels herself to be bodiless, floating in nothingness. Speculation, but sure, why not. > From the outside, she seems to be asleep or paralyzed. She is kept alive by caretakers and her own autonomous processes but she can perceive none of it. Every coma patient can be described by that. > Is she sentient? Id say yes, but she nevertheless lacks some of the required conditions. The answer depends on what I outlined above. If she has pain response or cranial nerve reflexes, she's medically considered alive and if you want to also sentient. If the physical examinations return negative results, an EEG several days apart can be used as another indication. Flat-line EEGs some days apart are a good indicator of non-sentience due to lack of any activity thought to be required for sentience (i.e. the computation-part mentioned earlier). In addition, cerebral blood flow can be tested as well. The absence of intracranial blood flow would again indicate a complete lack of brain activity and therefore lack of sentience of any measurable kind. This of course is done over a period of time, not in an instant, as patients may still recover (though usually within days, not months or even years). So this adds another important part to the equation: time. So I need to clarify my previous proposal by including it: "Capable of perceiving and interacting with the environment at any point in its existence for a significant period of time." There. I think that's much better already, because it also excludes otherwise functional humans from being sentient (e.g. children born without a cerebrum, aka anencephaly) while including people who are temporarily (due to trauma or illness) incapable of perception or interaction.

by qayxc 4y ago

rendall 4y ago

> Sentience in any scientific sense... I'm still not seeing a definition there though. Let's arbitrarily try: "sentience is here defined as having sensations, self awareness and sense of place in the universe". Good? Feel free to change it. I like your necessary versus sufficient phrasing, though. Let's take a look. Can we agree to remove "in any scientific sense" from there? It lends it an air of authority I'm not sure is justified. Feel free to push back, though. So: a required condition for sentience is "the ability to actively perceive- and interact with the environment, as well as a physical mechanism for processing and storing information" Hmm. "Actively perceive" "And interact with the environment" and "stores information". Couldn't this be a just-so story to include that which we feel to be most like us and exclude that which is least like us? Could we then say "the degree to which something is sentient is the degree to which it matches a human"? I think I can imagine a patient who contacts a horrific virus that cuts off all external and bodily sensations. She is still fully cognizant but now feels herself to be bodiless, floating in nothingness. From the outside, she seems to be asleep or paralyzed. She is kept alive by caretakers and her own autonomous processes but she can perceive none of it. Is she sentient? Id say yes, but she nevertheless lacks some of the required conditions.

int_19h 4y ago
I believe that you're spot-on here. We don't really know what sentience is and cannot define it, so we resort to one of the two approaches: inclusionary, where anything that behaves as we'd expect a sentient entity to behave is considered sentient; and exclusionary, which is basically coming up with excuses as to why things that behave as sentient really aren't, because their behavior is implemented in ways that are "fundamentally" different from ours.
qayxc 4y ago
> Can we agree to remove "in any scientific sense" from there? No we can't, that's the entire point. As soon as you remove that, you remove any testable, repeatable observation, which is the whole point. > I think I can imagine a patient who contacts a horrific virus that cuts off all external and bodily sensations. Think harder. There's a reason some patients are declared "brain dead". There are observable processes associated with human sentience, e.g. brain waves and body functions. If one fails (e.g. the heart stops and the vital signs collapse), they can sometimes be restored externally. If both fail and cannot be restored, the patient is declared dead and thus no longer sentient in the scientific (i.e. observable and testable) sense. Everything else is religion. It's really that simple. edit: as far machines go, different criteria have to be selected, because obviously language models don't have a pulse or emit delta waves. edit2: also forgot to mention that the perception and interaction proposal applies to the system (or organism) in principle - accidents or illnesses don't count; a system that's by design incapable of interacting with and perceiving its environment cannot be said to be sentient (again, because I cannot stress this enough: in an observable/testable way).
qayxc 4y ago
I gave this some more thought, because I find this topic fascinating and important in light of recent developments in the field. Sentience requires the ability to perform computations and to store information. This is the most basic necessary precondition and rules out most inanimate objects from being sentient right away. The scenario of a patient incapable of any kind of perception (keep in mind that this includes touch, taste, smell, and pain) and incapable of conscious interaction (e.g. locked-in syndrome) can still be observably sentient (testable by monitoring brain patterns and various pain- and reflex tests). Pain response and cranial nerve reflexes in your example, would be considered signs of brain activity and sentience. They also qualify as perceiving and interacting with the environment, though passively. Their absence in many jurisdictions is equivalent to the death of the patient (specifically they are declared brain dead). This understanding of being alive or dead, however, is separate from our understanding of sentience. In the context of human being specifically, being alive is a requirement for being sentient. Generally, though, these are two different matters entirely. So back to your example: > I think I can imagine a patient who contacts a horrific virus that cuts off all external and bodily sensations. Locked-in syndrome comes to mind. > She is still fully cognizant but now feels herself to be bodiless, floating in nothingness. Speculation, but sure, why not. > From the outside, she seems to be asleep or paralyzed. She is kept alive by caretakers and her own autonomous processes but she can perceive none of it. Every coma patient can be described by that. > Is she sentient? Id say yes, but she nevertheless lacks some of the required conditions. The answer depends on what I outlined above. If she has pain response or cranial nerve reflexes, she's medically considered alive and if you want to also sentient. If the physical examinations return negative results, an EEG several days apart can be used as another indication. Flat-line EEGs some days apart are a good indicator of non-sentience due to lack of any activity thought to be required for sentience (i.e. the computation-part mentioned earlier). In addition, cerebral blood flow can be tested as well. The absence of intracranial blood flow would again indicate a complete lack of brain activity and therefore lack of sentience of any measurable kind. This of course is done over a period of time, not in an instant, as patients may still recover (though usually within days, not months or even years). So this adds another important part to the equation: time. So I need to clarify my previous proposal by including it: "Capable of perceiving and interacting with the environment at any point in its existence for a significant period of time." There. I think that's much better already, because it also excludes otherwise functional humans from being sentient (e.g. children born without a cerebrum, aka anencephaly) while including people who are temporarily (due to trauma or illness) incapable of perception or interaction.